It's a nice thought, but it's probably not true, sadly :(
It's sort of a game-theoretic problem. First, we consider the vast distances between species, the time it would take to traverse that distance, and the time it would take to receive translatable interspecies messages across such distances; second, we consider the default lack of non-mathematical communicative understanding between species. Third, we consider the results of the Drake equation, that the the Milky Way itself is likely to have advanced extraterrestrial life far excedding 1; given the age of other star systems, and our knowledge of the time it takes for species like ours to develop civilly and technologically, it's a not too implausible hypothesis that there are other older star systems with more developed civilizations. Fourth, we consider the fact that resources in the universe are scarce in conjunction with the vast distances between habitable zones. The fourth point might not be a problem until enough nearby civilizations become a type II civilizations and beyond on the Kardashev scale.
So, with these four points, we can rougly state the problem: the distances between our solar system and other habitable zones (even going the speed of light), is far enough to make interstellar travel time consuming and hard because of resource expenditures and potential economic expenditures. Now, species variation can be wide: just think of the variation in Earth-born species. We have no reason to think interstellar communication between us and a space-farring, extraterrestrial species would be intelligible without immense research efforts on both sides. In fact, the communicative barrier is often overlooked. We tend to think that intellible and effective communication would be easily attainable, or at worst, possible after repeated meaningful contact. But we have no other basis from which to judge how long it would take to establish reliable non-mathematical communication between species except for our knowledge of how human linguistic systems work and how non-human animal communicative systems work. Even in these areas, our research efforts are still in their infancy.
Now, let's consider effects from the distance. The distance between us makes interspecies communicative efforts extremely difficult and dangerous. After all, from such a distance, and without default reliable communicative methods, species A should assume that species B is either benevolent or malevolent, and vice-versa. ("Benevolent" here just means not posing an existential threat or an intentional, severe existential risk to the other species. "Malevolent" is just the opposite of this, but can of course tend towards the bare minimum of not posing a high existential risk to also aiming to further develop and share culture, knowledge, and resources with other developing civilations). Let's assume the second option holds, that species B is malevolent. Then your species, species A, is threatend. Hiding or direct action becomes a necessity.
Now assume the first option: that species B is benevolent. If both species are benevolent, each species has an incentive to communicate their benevolence to other. After all, not knowing that the other species is not benevolent is itself a risk. How can that be done over the vast distances between them, together with the time it takes to traverse it or otherwise to develop meaningful interspecies communication? However long or short this communicative phase might be, notice the fact that both species being benevolent is consistent with both species wondering what the other species thinks about them: are they benevolent or not? The time-lage allows for suspicion. If they have any reason to think:
(1) We're malevolent: we are an existential threat to their species, or: (2) We're probably benevolent, but that we believe that their species is malevolent
Then it's in their species's interest to render us harmless. This can be accomplished by rendering further technological development in threatening areas impossible (e.g., by supressing research development in interstellar defense; space WMD; harnessing stellar energy from something like a dyson sphere, or in general by advancing onto type II and beyond civilizations). Otherwise, the extraterrestrial civilization can choose to annihilate us from afar or make an attempt to invade and utilize our star systems resources.
Now let's assume a third case:
(3) They're benevolent; the other species [us] are technologically less advanced than the other species. Moreover, they believe that we aim to communicate our aim of being benevolent, and we aim for the more developed species to contact us further.
In the third case, we are intuitively not in a bad position. But given the vast distances between us, that allows for the possibility of great technological advancements before one civilization reaches the other (just think of technological advances between the 1700's - now). The less developed species [in this case, us] could become a threat just by becoming more developed [think of the transition we made after nuclear fission was discovered and engineered]. The other civilization is in a position to know about this potential threat just in virtue of the facts about technological development over time and the facts that enabled us to be located: it takes some effort for us to be locatable in space, unless the fact that intelligent life was discovered on Earth, in our small solar system, was a chance observation. In the third case, then, the extraterrestrial civilization would at least have an incentive to be cautious with us and perhaps avoid further contact all together. But the problem with avoiding further contact is this: if we are locatable by the extraterrestrial civilization, then they are locatable by us. Of course, it might not be within even 100 years, but if it takes even 500 years, that would still be a potential treat to them. What if we locate them, and our civilization becomes malevolent? What if we locate them, and we--whether by chance, intention, or by ignorance--make their location more easily known to other advanced civilizations? (In millions of years, our planetary-based resources will decrease throughout our solar system: our overall energy yield might exceed the capacity of our star system. We might then have an incentive to search for other star systems to colonize and harness its energy. We are liable to make ourselves locatable, and the knowledge of another civilization's whereabouts becomes a threat to that civilization). In general, avoiding further contact with us might put the other civilization at far too much risk, whether in the present or the future. An existential risk might be too high a risk for some advanced civilizations. The best case scenario would be for two benevolent advanced civilizations to make contact--both developed to the same degree--such that each civilization is able to make meaningful contact between with other, without suspicion, communicating their shared intention of benevolent cooperation.
The problem with the bese case being realized is the large number of civilizations the Drake equation hypothesizes there to be. If there are millions of civilizations, and even a small fraction of them are both advanced and malevolent, then both the advanced benevolent civilizations and the benevolent but less advanced, type 1 and below civilizations, have an incentive to (a) be quiet, and to decrease their attention as much as possible; and to (b) avoid contact with other civilizations, since any interstellar contact makes both liable to become known and locatable by potentially malevolent 'third-party' civilizations. Plus, the other worries about communicative failure/misunderstanding, communicative time-lag, and technological growth puts futher pressure on avoiding contact altogether.
Chances are that the universe is filled with advanced civilizations, none of which plan to contact or to be contacted. In fact, it's a bit worse than that. The chances are that civilizations aim to hide their existence from others. Even the most loving civilizations might suspect that a high existential risk is posed to their species by making themselves known to type II and above species, since it's not likely that all type II civilizations and beyond are benevolent [unless there is some necessary link between being an instellar, high-energy yield civilization and being benevolent].
(I'm just appropriating, in a rough-and-ready way, Cixin Liu's "dark forest" theory for the Fermi paradox, since it seems to tell against your more optimistic idea). In general, I hope this more pessimistic idea is wrong!